That is sooooo cute! Come on, do it again!
My experience with other very partisan issues like dealing with climate change tells me that cooperating does not help at all, sometimes you have to tell the ones organizing a fishing expedition to take a hike instead.
For example Virginia’s former general attorney Cuccinelli failed to get all the emails from Paleo climate expert Michael Man, after “climate gate” it was clear that the idea was to get other emails that sounded funny and paste it out of context so as to intimidate scientists like Mann to stop doing “inconvenient” research.
The courts agreed that this was indeed an attempt at a fishing expedition, but the point here is that after Cuccinelli Failed to get his emails his witch hunt ended and maybe also his political ambitions as he lost the election in part thanks to that naked effort to shut up science.
Getting into the subject: After the white house gave the requested information we see that an email (that as I have seen it is very likely to had been already seen by guys like Issa or not important nor “smoky” as the cherry pickers said) was found that gets the “debate” going. The fishing expedition has succeeded on finding an email that IMHO will be easy to explain, but the Republicans in the hearings will find nevertheless ways to tar the administration and Hillary Clinton for the peanut gallery.
As it was the intention and part of their playbook.
Yes, this is what they have to resort to, with the years they’ve invested ardent opposition to Obamacare now blowing up in their faces. Look for Issa to keep this thing convened until Election Day, then adjourn quietly.
The Benghazi attack took place September 11, 2012. Does the public know the specifics of the events leading up to and including the two attacks that occurred that night?
Nope. (After all, what difference does it make?)
Has anyone been arrested or imprisoned for their participation in, or planning of, the attack?
Nope. (After all, what difference does it make?)
Four Americans were murdered and the Obama WH said they would find out what had happened. I guess they’ve been too busy covering up the cover up than to prosecute the perpetrators of the attack?
Where was Obama during the attacks AND what was he doing? Is that a “state secret”?
Four Americans were murdered and the Hillary State dept said they would find out what had happened. I guess they’ve been too busy redacting files instead of identifying the actual perpetrators. (Or busy objecting to the girl-kidnapping Boko Haram group being listed as a terrorist group?)
If the Obama administration had been totally transparent, at the very beginning, of all the facts surrounding the murder of an U.S. Ambassador - there would no longer be any lingering questions.
Benghazi is responsible for global warming? I didn’t know that. :rolleyes:
Read it again, you only show to others that you are not capable of identifying other examples of how politics are affecting the “evidence” obtained by emails. The common denominator in both cases are irrational Republican leaders.
I assume they are trying to locate those responsible. It may be difficult, and it may require not telling the world what steps we are taking to track them down. I’m not surprised we haven’t brought them to justice (or justice to them) yet.
I’ve never heard anyone say the deaths of the four Americans didn’t matter. What I have heard is that the extreme focus on whether the Administration uttered the correct label (“terrorist”) didn’t matter too much. I would agree with that.
I think there has been a comprehensive report on the actual attacks. Whether or not the “public” knows the specifics, is up the public, I guess. The information is out there. I don’t find it strange that people generally are not that much more interested in this particular attack then the 13 that took place under the previous administration.. The world has lots of bad people in it who like to do bad things to Americans. That’s hardly news to anyone.
Tracking down and arresting the perpetrators may be more trouble than it’s worth. We also have no idea what might be going on behind the scenes. Maybe one of these days we’ll wake up to news of some big drone strike against the people who led the attack.
I don’t see why it’s relevant where Obama was and what he was doing. This wasn’t the Cuban missile crisis, for God’s sake. Of course, anything short of Obama being locked in the situation room the entire night will invite howls of derision from the right. In that respect, I don’t blame the administration for keeping this information to themselves.
It’s like Obama’s college transcript. I’m guessing his grades were fine but that he probably enrolled in a seminar on Marx and Engels or something at some point. Which of course would prove to all the wingers that they’ve been right all along. If we didn’t have such a sophomoric, outrage-centric approach to discussing politics in this country, of which your post is Exhibit A, maybe such things wouldn’t be needless turned into a political liability.
On “what difference does it make,” the gotcha game of taking a given politician’s words out of context and using it as a weapon of mockery and derision is juvenile and a hallmark of partisan hackery. Anyone remotely dispassionate about this knows exactly what she meant.
Specifics of which events? Of what meetings Amb Stevens was taking when he was in Benghazi? That’s out there. Of what help was ordered to assist the facility? That’s been made clear, as well as why its impossible to snap one’s fingers and have the A-Team on site in one hour.
The fact that there is no US presence at all in Benghazi because of the security situation makes it hard for the FBI to make arrests, no doubt. But that’s
He was on the shitter, okay? Is that what you want to hear? He had some bad oysters and was in agony at 2am, but he directed the Secretary of Defense to do everything that could be done. What, you want him lead an assault on the bad guys like President Thomas J Whitmore did in Independence Day?
When are we going to see some transparency from House Republicans about their motives for cutting embassy security funding? Where’s the investigation on that?
Because charges of incompetence and fecklessness isn’t quite as bad as being accused of soft in the war on terror. It’s less damaging politically to blame a protest turned deadly on a youtube provocateur than is to say, right before an election, “yes, a well organized, planned terrorist attack was carried out against us.”
Not saying that I agree that the critics of the administration, but I can easily see why one narrative is worse than the other.
Then your blaming Republicans for the attacks in Benghazi?
No. I am, however, blaming Republicans for changing the narrative from “what weaknesses in procedure/funding/staffing/intelligence/whatever led to this and how do we bolster those weak spots?” to “Obama lied, four died–nothing else matters.”
In my ideal world, you would only post in the Pit.
I blame the perpetrators, but you aren’t doing a good job of explaining why Republicans sought to cut diplomatic security funds.
Your personal attack is unwarranted and unwelcome.
And “What else can we learn from the 13 similar attacks on US diplomatic facilities, including almost 100 killed, under the previous administration, and why didn’t we learn it then?”
Why were so many Benghazi emails redacted? Why did it take a court order to get un-redacted emails? Where was Obama during the Benghazi attack and what was he doing? Why hasn’t Hillary followed up on her promise to explain what’s been happening to the families of the dead Americans?
You sound like those crazy people trying to imply Gov. Christie had something to do with the George Washington Bridge lane reassignment
shrug
Why won’t Republicans explain why they cut embassy security? Why won’t Boehner make it a truly bipartisan investigation committee of 7 R’s and 7 D’s?